Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

flowingdata.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 232 posts

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#131

Post by andreasklinger »

anotherbrownguy wrote: post #38
Snoozle wrote: post #9

I think that regardless of your social or political stance of anything regarding males, females, workplaces, salaries, or sexism, more data is always nice to have. Now I'm going to figure out how to twist this into fitting my own personal world view and then make a news article about it.

Remember to take the most debatable data points, assume them to be facts and overgeneralize them to show how it is an indication of something systemic.

Also in case you assume correlation jump ahead and be sure it's causation.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#132

Post by belorn »

derefr wrote: post #114
imron wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something else? Here's one more thing that might be a confounding factor - taller people have higher salaries [0], and on average men are taller than women. Maybe just a spurious correlation [1], but still interesting to think about. 0: https://www.livescience.com/5552-taller-people-earn-money.ht... 1: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

I'd love to know if women as tall as men get paid closer to men's salaries, as a group.

It would be odd if hight was the only factor.

The question I would like to know is how large the height factor is to other measurable effects.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#133

Post by ivanhoe »

watwut wrote: post #82
VirtualAirwaves wrote: post #68

Don't we need more men in primary and secondary school teaching? I would think so.

That is highly discussed issue in pedagogic cycles - how to get and keep more males. For years. The answer usually ends up "yes, but they would come only if there would be higher social status and salaries for teachers". And no one knows how to achieve that. It is possible that money is not the only thing to keep males away, I dont recall any studies. Just that is the usual assumption. The fact that male teachers ten…

One way that comes to mind is to put some work in lowering the social pressure on young males to be "earners" and "providers"... when it becomes acceptable that my wife earns the real money and I do something not particularly cool nor profitable that I enjoy, and that we're not being weirdos in everyones eyes because of it ("poor woman, what's she doing with that looser?"), then all those problems will be solved...

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#134

Post by mikeash »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #105
mikeash wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers." The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the coun…

> The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass? It's not wrong, but speaking that way also doesn't foster a nuanced conversation with emotion in check, hence is bad for the site's cu…

I'd much rather have a reasonable statement made in course language than an outrageous lie wrapped in friendly-sounding language.

"The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality...." What is this based on? I see this stated pretty often, but I don't think I've ever encountered someone who thinks this way.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#135

Post by belorn »

seanalltogether wrote: post #42
Snoozle wrote: post #9

I think that regardless of your social or political stance of anything regarding males, females, workplaces, salaries, or sexism, more data is always nice to have. Now I'm going to figure out how to twist this into fitting my own personal world view and then make a news article about it.

If these circles had average salaries attached to them, I'm sure the article would write itself.

Median salaries that is normalized to the numbers of worked hours.

And work injures/deaths.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#136

Post by throwawayjava »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #91
throwawayjava wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> at around the 1960s/1970s. >> the U. S. began, even if just a little bit, to pull its head out of its ass with respect to equality and rights > Please watch your tone... There are plenty of people with more nuanced opinions on gender roles that aren't bigoted. But the opinions codified in policy prior to the 1960s/1970s were objectively horrifying . Brown v. Board was decided in 1954. Jim Crow was going strong in…

I agree that most of above is objectively horrifying, but the tone of your post was overly emotional and attracts the kinds who vote based on emotion instead of logic. "the U. S. began... to pull its head out of its ass," is not professional. > there isn't a non-bigoted defense of -- or inappropriate tone for criticizing -- the confluence of those policies. >it was the era of "women's lib", or in full "women's libera…

So you think emphasizing rhetorical persuasion over reasoned persuasion is detrimental to productive conversation.

But then proceed to make an entire post about rhetorical content even though you completely agree with the post's logical conclusions.

And then use that critique of language -- not logic -- as a springboard for a counter-argument that isn't even responsive to the author's original claim (which you say you agree with anyways).

That position is untenable. Be consistent, especially if you're advancing an argument in favor of logic!

> Interpret it how you like. I was critiquing...

No, you missed my point. The tone of your writing comes off as condescending, regardless of your intent. It is the sort of thing a parent says to a child, or a judge to an unruly defendant. I literally cannot think of a way to read "watch you tone" in a way that is not condescending.

It is reasonable to tell someone to please phrase something in a more polite manner.

It is completely unreasonable to do so in a condescending tone, and many people will down-vote you for doing so.

IMO there is nothing wrong with blunt language on an internet forum. You apparently disagree, except when it comes to your own speech.

Again, be consistent.

> but the tone of your post

Not my post.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#137

Post by belorn »

watwut wrote: post #82
VirtualAirwaves wrote: post #68

Don't we need more men in primary and secondary school teaching? I would think so.

That is highly discussed issue in pedagogic cycles - how to get and keep more males. For years. The answer usually ends up "yes, but they would come only if there would be higher social status and salaries for teachers". And no one knows how to achieve that. It is possible that money is not the only thing to keep males away, I dont recall any studies. Just that is the usual assumption. The fact that male teachers ten…

There is a good report done by the Swedish government body for higher education (which include the program that teach teachers), and it has multiple reasons stated. Two I strongly remember is that the education work culture has incorporate female gender identity (similar to "bro culture" in IT), and that the rate that male students leave the teacher program is significant higher than for female students. The few men that ends up finishing the program also tend to the leave the profession in higher rate than women.

The similarities are very striking to me to those made about IT profession, but with the roles reversed.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#138

Post by halloij »

Snoozle wrote: post #9

I think that regardless of your social or political stance of anything regarding males, females, workplaces, salaries, or sexism, more data is always nice to have. Now I'm going to figure out how to twist this into fitting my own personal world view and then make a news article about it.

Hint: Over the same time period, womens own reported "happiness" has gradually and steadily declined.

Well done ladies! You made yourselves miserable

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#139

Post by nitwit005 »

randyrand wrote: post #112

I've said this before, but technology progress is the reason women now work outside the home. Not societal progress. Tasks that took all day in the 1900s - 1930s are now completely outdated or take minutes instead of hours. A housewife today would be bored out of her mind relative to how much work a 1900s era housewife had to do. Making 3 meals from near-scratch for 6+ people every day, raising 6-10 children so they…

The work seems to expand to fill the time. You'll notice people struggle to raise their 2-3 kids, when people previously had over a dozen. They're now putting in more effort per-child.

Having cleaning be easier similarly seems to raise cleaning standards.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#140

Post by mahyarm »

disconnected wrote: post #27

Many of those shifts from a majority male workforce to a majority female workforce seem to happen quickly (or even abruptly) at around the 1960s/1970s. I'm not well versed in American history. Did anything significant happen then to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly?

A bunch also happened in the 1980s. It would be interesting to figure out the causes in each of these decades.
Post reply on HN